Sinners upon Earth in the likeness of Man deny'd that he was truly Man. 'T is true many Dissenters from the Catholic Church and Hereticks grounding themselves on this Scriptural Passage Christ appeared in the likeness of Man eagerly taught that he was a Phantasm or Appearance not a natural Man composed of Flesh and Bone. And you their Faithful Imitator gloss after the same manner not upon Scripture but upon a single Passage of one Father and this too borrowed from Gratian. But with how little reason you gloss after this manner these following Passages of S. Austin taken out of the same Gratian will farther demonstrate The First is part of the Canon wherein your Objection is contained These are his Words What exteriorly appears in the Sacrament is a Figure the Truth is the Body and Blood of Christ made of the Substance of Bread and Wine The Second Passage is We faithfully confess it is before Consecration Bread and Wine which Nature made but after Consecration the Flesh and Blood of Christ which Benediction consecrated The Third is the meaning of that Passage of our Saviour The Bread which I will give in the 6th of St. John which words determine in St. Austin's mind How Christ is Bread not only as he is the Word which gives all things life but also according to the Flesh assumed for the life of the World. Is this not real Flesh Paragraph VII YOU mention but one more Testimony but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered It is in his Treatise de Doctrina Christiana where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or commanding us to do good it is not figurative if the contrary it is figurative for example except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you this seems to command a heinous Crime therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord. If I should deny that St. Austin speaks here of receiving the Sacrament you would be puzled to find out a warrant for your famous Assertion For many Learned Writers judiciously remark that these words except ye eat of my Flesh in Saint Austin's Sense may be thus explicated except ye eat it by Faith by Piety by Good Works which is a Spiritual Communion out of the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord. And if this be true as it is more than probably so St. Austin says here what all Catholics profess For we all say we may communicate spiritually of the Passion of Christ by Faith believing in Jesus when we receive not the Sacrament and yet we believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But if you will still keep this Holy Father whose Learning has always been the Admiration of Mankind out of his wits to use your Phrase a slight reflection supposing he speaks here of Sacramental Communion will help him to return to himself and reconcile him to the Catholic Affirmation I think one of a mean Capacity can distinguish the manner of eating and the thing eaten Which if true St. Austin may literally understand the thing eaten in the Sacrament to be the true Flesh of Christ God and Man and yet at the same instant hold that the manner of eating this Flesh to which this Passage except ye eat my Flesh has referenee is Spiritual For although the true Body be taken in the shape of Bread into the Mouth and let down into the Stomack yet it is not ground with the Teeth or separated in pieces We are taught after a Spiritual manner to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. Lissen to the Voice of God and you 'l hear the Gospel mention eating a Man take eat this is my Body The manner is Spiritual for the Body is given in the shape of Bread and in this Sense St. Austin calls these words except ye eat my Flesh a figurative Speech The Substance or the thing eaten is not here mentioned by the Saint But it is the true Body of Christ as the same Saint assures us else-where in these Lines We believe in the Sacrament with faithful heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus giving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drank although it appear more horrible to eat than to kill Human Flesh to drink than to spill Human Blood. Every word almost instances a new Argument for the truth of the Flesh This oral receiving with mouth God and Man This horror of eating and drinking Flesh and Blood this Antithesis between eating and killing drinking and spilling terminated to the same substance leaves not the least scruple to doubt that the thing eaten is real Flesh and Blood. And pray what horror would there be to eat an Image of Flesh or what Language speaks of killing the Figure of a Man The same Saint in his Exposition on the 33d Psalm hath this Passage He 's truly our Lord who truly gave us his Body to eat in which he so much suffered Elsewhere he says the Faithful receive into their mouth that Blood which redeemed them And in his 27th Treatise on St. John speaking of St. Peter's Confession I find this remarkable Sentence You are Christ the Son of the living God and what you give in your Flesh and Blood is nothing else but your own self Now you must acknowledge the way I have prescribed or find some other expedient to reconcile St. Austin's Wit with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or all the World will imagine you put your own to a desperate adventure Article VII YOU mention two Testimonies out of Theodoretus's Dialogues between a Catholic under the name of Orthodoxus and a Heretic under the name of Eranistes who maintained with the Eutichians that the Humanity of Christ after the Ascension was changed into the Divinity I 'll examine each apart Paragraph I. The Dispute of Orthodoxus and Eranistes in the First Dialogue ORthodoxus undertakes to shew that the Humanity of Christ alwaies remain'd This he proves because the Humanity was a Vail or Garment to the Divinity as we read in Genesis where Jacob prophecy'd of the Messias He washed his Garment in Wine and his Cloaths in the Blood of the Grape Eranistes replys this is understood literally of his proper Habit with which he was cloathed upon Earth Orthodoxus resumes that Jesus called himself the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and the Blood of our Saviour is called the Blood of the Vine And if our Saviour be called the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and from the side of our Saviour ran Fountains of Blood on the rest of his Body The Prophet rightly foretold that He washed his Robe in Wine and his Cloths
in the Blood of the Grape Again speaking to Eranistes he pursues with another Simile Jesus called his Body Bread and his Flesh Wheat But in the institution of the Sacrament he called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood Though naturally the Body is called the Body and Blood is called Blood but our Saviour changing the Names gave to his Body the Name of Symbol and to the Symbol or Sign the Name of his Body Eranistes urges to know the cause of this change of Names Orthodoxus answers Nothing more easie to the Faithful For he would have those who partake of the Divine Mysteries not to attend to the nature of things which are seen but by the change of Names to believe the change which is made by Grace for he who called that which by nature is a Body Wheat and Bread and again called himself the Vine he honoured the Symbol with the name of his Body and Blood not changing nature but adding Grace to nature This is a full view of the matter in debate We ought to reflect that as Theodoretus compares here Scriptural passages wherein they resemble one another and consequently acknowledges the Similitude of the already mention'd Expressions So also was he not ignorant of their differences And therefore he said Jesus changed the Names that by their change the Faithful might believe that alteration which Grace effected The change of names is acknowledged to proceed from a change made in the Sacrament For he obliges the Faithful to believe a change which is made not in the nature of things which are seen for the natural Signs or outward appearances remain it must be then in some inward thing not seen or Substance of the Symbol effected by Grace or the Word of God. This in another place he professes in these Words Christ gave his pretious Body not only to the Eleven Apostles but also to the Traytor Judas This cannot be properly Grace added to Nature for Judas received his own condemnation It must be then the Body of Christ made by Grace of the Substance of Bread and added to the Nature or remaining appearance of the Signs which was given to the Traytor Paragraph II. Upon the continuation of the same Discourse in the Second Dialogue ORthod What are those Symbols which the Priest offers to God Eranist They are Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Orthod Of the true Body Eranist Of the true Body Orthod Very right Eranist Very well Orthod If these Divine Mysteries represent the true Body the true Body of Christ is not changed into the Divinity Eranistes perceiving himself caught cunningly retorts the Argument in the like manner How do you call these Symbols after consecration Orthod The Body and Blood of Christ Eranist Do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Christ Orthod I do believe Eranist Therefore as the Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and become another thing so the Body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the Divine Substance If Orthodoxus had not believed that the Symbols were truly changed in Substance after consecration how could Eranistes have deduced the change of the Human Nature into the Divine Substance He could not argue this out of his own principle For admitting no Body of Christ in Heaven how could he pretend a real Body of Christ in the Sacrament whence the Protestant Centuriators say Theodoretus dangerously affirms that the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are changed and become another thing Orthodoxus answers you are caught in your own net because the Mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance and may be seen and handled even as before As Bread is properly said to have Substance and Nature which are neither seen nor handled so likewise the Accidents of Bread may be said though not so commonly to have their own Nature and Substance which may be seen and handled Whence that of St. Austin What is not a Substance is nothing at all 'T is in this sense Orthodoxus holds the substance of the Symbols remains And lest we should doubt what this substance is he tells us 't is Figure and Appearance Nor is this a constrained interpretation For what more usual when we have uttered some word either harsh in expression or difficult to be understood than forthwith to add another softer in Language and more obvious to the Hearer Thus Theodoretus saying They remain in their former substance adds that is they remain in their former Figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before Nor are these latter Expressions referable to Substance strictly taken for the inward thing because this properly is neither seen nor handled Now if you ask what these Symbols are interiorly Theodoretus confesses they are what they were made Christ's Body And they are believed and adored as being those very things which they are believed Which Words if the Bread be not substantially changed into Christ's Body teach plain Idolatry Nor could Orthodoxus say the interiour Substance of the Symbols was not changed in his own Opinion for this he had already granted in these Words They are changed and become after consecration another thing Orthodoxus pretends indeed that he caught his Adversary in his own Net. But this was not because Eranistes believed the Substance of the Symbols was not changed into Christ's Body for he thought Christ's Body was no where extant How then was he caught in his own Net He was caught in his own Net because these Mystical Symbols were not changed in appearance for after consecration they may be seen and handled and they were Symbols still of Christ's true Body which Eranistes had formerly granted and therefore there was a true Body of Christ and so the Body of Christ was not changed into the Divinity as Orthodoxus had argued Thus Eranistes was caught in his own Net. Nor ought Theodoretus to be censured for Singularity in giving the Name of Nature and Substance to accidental Beings For St. Hilary gives the same to Proprieties Saying That the Flames in the Babilonian Furnace lost their Nature though the Substance of the Fire remained Innocent the Third that Venerable Pope and Father of the Church under whom was defined the Doctrin of Transubstantiation frankly concedes the Natural Proprieties of Bread remain ut paneitas And Cardinal Pole another great Vindicator of the same Tenet says Though there be only Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament notwithstanding the Nature of the Wine may be tasted I would have you likewise argue that these Authors are against Transubstantiation Article VIII Upon Gelasius the Pope THESE Words of Gelasius The Substance of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be are already satisfied by what I
not confess that the Eucharist is that Flesh which suffered for our sins The Flesh which suffered for us and rose again was it a Figure or was it true Flesh If I should affirm that the Language of the Second Century spoke after the same manner and told us that they were taught the Eucharist was not common Bread but was the Flesh of our Saviour made Man and Jesus incarnate would you not reply it was a Roman Invention And yet St. Justin the Martyr leaves this convincing Testimony We do not receive these things as common Bread or common Drink But as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so are we taught that this Food by which chang'd by digestion in our Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Flesh and Blood are nourish'd Eucharistated or transformed by the prayer of this Divine Word is the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus If for all this you should reply that the Eucharistic Food is onely figuratively the Flesh and Blood of Christ then might the Reader likewise aver Christ being incarnate had onely figuratively both Flesh and Blood. For 't is more to say the blessed Bread is the Flesh and Blood of Incarnate Jesus because this Speech implies a substantial change than to say Jesus being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood because this Speech can signifie no more than a substantial Union And to say less in either is to diminish and change the Martyr's Sense If I should instance the Third Age was a faithful Imitator of the precedent so dividing between the Divine Mystery and the Grace of the Mystery that the Body of Man received the Body and Blood of Christ and the Soul was replenished with the Grace of Faith or effect of the Sacrament would you not be surprized at the acknowledgment of what was given in Communion And yet Tertullian furnishes us with a sufficient manifestation of this Truth Saying Our Flesh is sed with the Body and Blood of Christ that our Soul may be filled with God. Again These words Our Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be deluded in an eating by Faith because the Body of Man is incapable of an act of Faith. If I should continue the Fathers of the Fourth Century when the Church was beautified and enriched with an innumerable Offspring of Pious and Learned Children If I should alledge how these worthy Champions of Christian Purity forbid Posterity to judge of the Sacrament by Tast and taught them the Body was given them under the Species of Bread and as Christ changed Water into Wine so did he Wine into his own Blood would you not swear this Language was unknown in those times And yet both the Greek and Latin Church conspire in this Doctrin Hearken to that Grecian Prelate St. Cyril of Jerusalem and acknowledge the plain truth of these words Do not judge the thing by Tast but by Faith. Under the species of Bread is given to thee the Body and under the species of Wine is given to thee the Blood. Christ formerly changed Water into Wine and is he not to be believed changing Wine into his Blood Nor are these words of the Learned Latin Bishop Gaudentius of less force Jesus giving to his Disciples Bread and Wine said this is my Body Let us believe it is what he said Truth is incapable of Error The Creator of all Nature and Lord who produces Bread from the Earth made again of this Bread because he can and promised his proper Body and because he did make Wine of Water of Wine he makes his Blood. I know there are several Expressions and Comparisons in the Fathers which only declare a spiritual change effected in the worthy Receiver But do not the foregoing Authorities prove something more a change not in the Receiver but in the thing received and this can be no less than a substantial one For when Catholics argue that as Christ changed Water into Wine so does he Bread into his Body Protestants readily deny the sequel because this would be to profess Transubstantiation If this reasoning of Catholics include a substantial change of the Bread into Christ's Body as you grant how comes it to pass that the very same words and very same reason in the Father's Writings must have quite another interpretation If the Fathers had design'd to have writ for Transubstantiation they could but have said what they do and you might still explicate them in a spiritual sense or wrested interpretation If I should urge on that I rightly profess the consecrated Bread transfigur'd and transelemented into the Body of Christ would you not exclaim these are as hard and mishapen words as that of Transubstantiation and yet many Fathers of this fourth Age after Christ use the same Expressions Witness this Language of St. Ambrose As often as we receive the Sacraments which by the Mystery of Prayer are transfigurated into Flesh and Blood witness this Speech of St. Gregory Nyssene I properly believe the Bread sanctified by the word of God to be changed into the Body of God the Word And this is effected the nature of what appears being transelemented by vertue of benediction into the Body of the word Christ I close up this Motive with the decision of the Synod in Egypt celebrated before the second Oecumenical Council to both which presided St. Cyril of Alexandria These Fathers composing a Creed inserted these words in the end of their Introduction This is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church in which the East and West agree Then immmediatly follows their Creed divided into many Articles What if their Seventh Article should decree the Flesh received in the Sacrament to be the very Flesh of Christ which made one Person and two Natures in one Son and not two Sons one of God Divine and another of the Blessed Virgin Human as Nestorius Heretically taught you could require nothing more for Transubstantiation And yet these are their words We do not receive in the Sacrament our Saviour's Flesh as common Flesh God forbid Nor again as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by unity of Dignity but as the true vivificative and proper Flesh of the Word himself truly the Flesh of him who for our sake was made and called the Son of Man. The Council admitting with Nestorius what was received to be true Flesh defines against the Heretic who pretended our Saviour as he was the Son of the Virgin Mary had not only a Nature but likewise a Human Person and so constituted two Persons in Christ that we do not receive this as common Flesh or the Flesh of an ordinary Person Secondly The Council adds Nor as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by the unity of Dignity which excluded that accidental Union by which the Nestorians joyned together two Persons that
cannot enter into Man's thought the Divine power and Omnipotency can and has operated It entred into St. Austin's mind explicating this Scriptural Passage as he thought in the Septuagint he was carried in his hands Thus to propose your Objection How could this be understood of Man for who is carried in his own hands a Man may be supported in others hands none is the burthen of his own hands The Saint Answers We find not the literal sense fulfilled in David in Christ we acknowledge it for Christ was carried in his hands when recommending his own very Body he said this is my Body for he carried that Body in his hands It entred into the thought of our Blessed Redeemer to make use of the like Argument before he gave us the Promise of giving himself entirely in the Sacrament For did he not in that miraculous Multiplication of five Loaves in the sixth Chapter of St. John feeding five thousand Persons give the five Loaves in some manner from the Loaves themselves The Fragments says St. Hilarie succeeded to Fragments and always broken always deceived the Breaker's hand For the Quantity of five Loaves was given and the like Quantity still remained Which Rabanus thus elegantly expressed they were multiplied by being diminished This Argument of our Blessed Saviour if it did not convince the Obstinate Jews it ought to prevail with Christians or at least silence them from saying how can he give himself from himself Paragraph III. Similitude of the Passover YOU compare with our Saviour's words the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as St. Justin Martyr tells us This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge Not that say you they believed the Pascal Lamb to be substantially changed into God who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias whom they expected Strange method and dangerous way of allegation tending to the depression of Christianity Our blessed Saviour and the Divine Apostles verify the sincere and literal truth of the new Testament as figurated and symbolized in the Law Prophets and Psalms and you scrupling this Order Judaize with the Hebrews and will have the Law of Grace figurative because the written Law is full of Similitudes and Representations And stranger remark of yours that the Jews did not believe the Paschal Lamb changed into God or the Messias How could they imagine the Lamb changed into God when they knew God could not receive the least alteration I am the Lord and not chang'd or into the Messias when change of one thing into another supposes both their existences and the Messias was not yet born The Israelites only then could believe the Passover a bare Representation to put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt But if St. Justin say The Passover is our Saviour would you desire a more plain exposition than the very following words that is our Refuge And if this Speech of St. Justin were in it self somewhat obscure This Passover is our Saviour The same Ceremonie delivered in Exodus by Moses varying the Phrase of the Passover is a sure Rule for understanding any such like Expression upon this account For there we read it is the Lord 's Passover The Septuagint translate It is the Passover to the Lord. Nor was this Expression unknown to the Hebrews The Passover to the Lord. Paragraph IV. Similitude of a Deed. YOU tell us that a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is the conveyance of a real Estate and truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material House and Lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into your hands If our Cause were pleaded at the Bar the Law it seems you think would make us the losers But if Scriptures be the Sentence I know not why we should refuse to acknowledge what God is pleased to bestow on us He tells us what he gives is his own Body why will you not believe him And to come close to your Objection Do you not by the passing of the Deed really and truly receive the Possession of the Substantial House Lands and Revenues in Specie You would little value the Writing if you did not So likewise the Sacrament conveys to the Receivers the Possession of the Substantial Body and Blood of our Saviour Article III. Upon the Context of St. Matthew YOU pretend that it was true Wine which our Saviour drank of and communicated I Answer not after Consecration You urge our Saviour said I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine this was true Wine I Answer that although we cannot collect from St. Matthew clearly whether these last words of our Saviour belonged to the Consecrated or not Consecrated Wine yet that clearness which St. Matthew's shortness feems to want St. Luke abundantly supplies describing the order of the Passover and delivering the Institution of the Sacrament So where we read in St. Matthew I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine St. Luke interprets and his Interpretation is true the fruit of the Vine before Consecration at the Supper of the Passover With desire says our Saviour I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer For I say unto you I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And he took the Cup and gave thanks and said take this and divide among your selves for I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine untill the Kingdom of God shall come Is not this a plain repetition of St. Matthew's words And here ended the Passover or Paschal Supper The Institution of the Sacrament immediately followed while they sate at Table and therefore St. Luke continues And he took Bread likewise also the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Here is the Eucharistic Cup which had nothing to do with the fruit of the Vine that was used before Consecration at the Paschal Supper Article IV. The Sense of St. Paul to the Corinthians THUS St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ These words the Bread which we break signifie the Sacrament For instead of them we read in the Acts of the Apostles according to the Syriac Version the Eucharist Now for the meaning of the word Communion Some will have it to be taken for Distribution Thus the word Communion is equivalent to doth Communicate and makes this Sense The distribution of the Sacrament doth it not communicate to us the true Body of Christ Thus if I stould say that the distribution of Bread in usual eating is the Communion of Bread would not any Man of
in Testimonies they give one of another and to despise God in those he speaks of himself St. Chrysostom adds We speak of God and you ask how this can be do you not tremble at the excess of your Temerity Our Blessed Saviour himself reprehended his Disciples following what Sense suggested at the proposal of the Sacrament in these words doth this offend you Finally The pious Christian guides his unruly Sense in the journey towards Heaven by the steady Reyns of true Faith. Thus the Apostles overcoming their own stubborness became supple and obedient to God's Promise and Power infinitely active beyond Human Imagination and they all joyned in St. Peter's confession And we believe and are sure thou art Christ the Son of the living God. Thus Divine Faith another time prevailed with St. Peter when Sense Reason and the fury of the Sea contradicted to press the Waves with his Feet and hardned the watry Element into a solid Passage The way to Heaven is still by Faith. From all which it must needs be very evident to any Man who will piously search into Truth how little reason there is to understand our Saviour's Words otherwise than in the sense of Transubstantiation SECT II. Of the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church I Have already manifested how the Roman Catholic Church rightly pretends as an evidence that the Fathers of the Primitive Ages interpreted our Saviour's Words in the sense of Transubstantiation But what Authors have been so fortunate in their Writings that the contrived endeavours of others have not cull'd out some places not so dark in themselves as they are shaded with smothered Representations These your Industry with no small increase has compacted together After this great Task you are pleased to shew when the Doctrin of Transubstantiation first came in And finally you undertake to give a Solution to the pretended Demonstration of Mr. Arnauld a learned man in France These three Subjects shall be the Mattter of so many Chapters CHAP. I. Whether any of the Fathers are against Transubstantiation REflection is the cause of Knowledge Division leads to Reflection I 'll therefore divide your selected Testimonies that they may be the consideration of so many distinct Articles Article I. Upon St. Justin Martyr YOU begin unfortunately with St. Justin whom you make expresly to say that our blood and flesh are nourished by the conversion of that Food which we receive in the Sacrament I find no such thing in the holy Martyr 'T is true I read these words By which Food chang'd in our Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Blood and Flesh are nourished What then Bread and Wine taken out of the Sacrament nourish according to this Passage Flesh and Blood which all the World will allow of And I shall believe St. Justin says no more till you can prove it from the Saint's own Testimonie But why do I say Testimonie when the Passage you cite is nothing but a bare Parenthesis I could heap up a great many such weaknesses collected out of your Discourse if the World were not already too much troubled with such trivial Reflections I 'll take liberty to add one more considerable viz. If natural digestion can change Bread and Wine into the proper Substance of our Bodies how easy will it be to Nature's Author to change one thing into another Bread into the Body of Christ Nor can any moderate Man imagin any thing less when the Devil himself tempted Christ to change one Substance into another Stones into Bread as a Strategem to find out whether he was God. Look likewise into the Book of Genesis and you 'll find that the sole Word of God gave in the beginning of Creation a Being to all Nature and how much more difficult is it to make all things of nothing than to change one thing into another Does not this evidence the possibility of Transubstantiation I thank you for this Objection Article II. Upon St. Irenaeus NOR are you more fortunate in St. Irenaeus who speaking of the Sacrament says The Bread which is from the Earth receiving the Divine Invocation is now no longer common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly the other heavenly For what is earthly may not unfitly be called the species of Bread and what is heavenly Christ himself Or what if I should attribute this earthly thing to Christ's Humanity and the heavenly thing to Christ's Divinity the Sacrament would be rightly said consisting of two things the one earthly the other heavenly I am sure the Proper Substance of Bread is nothing but Common Bread And yet St. Irenaeus affirms this ceases after Consecration receiving the Divine Invocation 't is no longer Common Bread it is not what it was before You instance and elsewhere he hath this Passage when therefore the Cup that is mixt and the Bread that is broken receives the Word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ of which the substance of our Flesh is increased and subsists St. Irenaeus discourses not here of a natural but of some spiritual increase of Flesh and Blood. For he says our Flest is increased with the Bread as it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ in which sense precisely 't is only supernatural Food Bread as it is supernatural Food or the true Body of Christ in the Sacrament increases the Soul with Grace and Flesh and Blood with a Legitimacy of Immortality These two great Benefits are neatly delivered as the proper effects of Christ's substantial presence in the Sacrament in these words of the Nyssene Doctor As the dire consequence of Poyson is by Counterpoyson prevented so the wholsome remedy which operates our Salvation entring the Bowels of Man thence every-where diffuses its force and vivification What is this wholsome remedy That Body which Jesus exhibited stronger than Death and which was the beginning of Life What can more evince Christ's substantial Presence to be the productive Cause of Sacramental Grace than to testifie this Adorable Body which died for us is in ours as a wholsome remedy there communicating Virtue and dispensing heavenly Treasures So is the same true Body of Christ present in the Sacrament the cause effective of our future Incorruption in Glory and increases in this sense the substance of Flesh and Blood with a beginning of Immortality as appears from the following Lines of the same Father Jesus according to the dispensation of Grace enters by Flesh into those who believe mixing himself with the Body of the Faithful that Man may become Partaker of Incorruption by the union with this Immortal Body This second benefit in St. Irenaeus's mind increases the Substance of Flesh and Blood giving a beginning of resurrection to the Body Or to use this Saint's Example As a grain of Wheat dissolved in earth rises by the power of God with much increase so Flesh and Blood
receiving in the Sacrament from the presence of Christ's Immortal Body the living Seed of Incorruption rise when dissolved by death increased with Immortality This agrees well with St. Irenaeus's design demonstrating in the place objected that our Bodies are capable of Resurrection because we receive in the Sacrament the true Body of Christ that Body which consists of Flesh Blood and Bones How can they deny says he the Flesh to be capable of the Gift of God For we are Members of his Body of his Flesh and of his Bones This is not spoken of a Spiritual or Metaphorical Man for a Spirit has neither Bone nor Flesh but it is delivered according to the disposition of Man which consists of Flesh of Nerves and Bones which is nourished with the Chalice which is his Blood and increased with the Bread which is his Body Do not Flesh Nerves Bones and Blood belong to a true Substantial Body You add St. Irenaeus 's words preserved by Oecumenius when the Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catecumeni that is such as were disposed but not yet baptized and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians These Servants having nothing to say that might gratifie those who offered violence to them except only that they had heard from their Masters that the Divine Communion was the Blood and Body of Christ they thinking that it was really Blood and Flesh declared as much to those who question'd them The Greeks taking this as it really were done by the Christians discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it To whom Blandina boldly answered how would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that Flesh which may lawfully be eaten Now if we consider Blandina's Answer we shall find therein contained a pious denyal of what was objected and a Christian reserve of what was received in the Sacrament A pious denial of eating the Flesh and Blood of a Child as the Greeks and all Pagans conceived after a carnal manner which shall be more amply discoursed hereafter And this caused Blandina to say How could they be guilty of such a heinous eating who abstain upon fasting days from Flesh which may lawfully be eaten A Christian reserve not discovering the Mystery to Pagans which was esteemed a betraying of Religion Thus Tharsilius the Acholyt as venerable Beda relates having the blessed Sacrament about him was seized on by the Barbarians and martyr'd because he refused to shew it St. Ambrose declares the discovery of the Mystery to those who were not baptized pass'd not for an instruction but for a sort of Treason in Religion St. Cyril says We speak not clearly of the Mystery to the Catecumeni and we are often constrained to make use of such Expressions which are understood by the Faithful instructed and do not offend other Assistants Such was Blandina's Reply which neither offended the Greeks nor betrayed the Mystery Article III. Upon Tertullian TErtullian proves against Marcion as you write the Heretique That the Body of our Saviour was not a meer Phantasm and Appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a Figure and an Image of his Body His Words are these The Bread which our Saviour took and gave to his Disciples he made his own Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body But it could not have been a Figure of his Body if there had not been a true and real Body Tertullian often sententious and difficult in expression as Lactantius and St. Jerom affirm may easily be misunderstood and misrepresented This Father's design here is to confute the Marcionites who defended that the God of the Old Testament was opposite to God the Father of Christ Author of the New Law. He makes good this undertaking proving the perfect agreement of both Testaments completed in Jesus who did not abolish but fulfil the Law when he changed the Shadow into a Body the Figure into Truth As Tertullian phrases it in his Fisth Book against Marcion This Accomplishment he shew'd from that of Jeremy where we read how the Jews fast'ned to the Cross the Bread of Christ that is his Body This he evidenced because Bread in the Old Law was a Figure of Christ's Body These are his Words It is what God has revealed in your own Gospel calling Bread his Body making known by this that Christ whose Body the Prophet represented in Bread long before he fulfilled this Figure gave from this very time of the Prophecy Bread to be the Figure of his Body These Words Christ gave the Bread even from the time of Jeremy to be the Figure of his Body represent Christ as Master and these others Jeremy represented in Bread the Body of Christ exhibit the Prophet as Minister Both testifie that Bread was a Figure in the Written Law and the Subordination of Jeremy to Jesus proves the concord of Christ with the ancient Testament which was Tertullian's peculiar Task The same he pursues in the place by you cited Bread He made his own Body saying this is my Body that is a Figure in the Prophet of Christ's Body This sense agrees well with the foregoing Tenor of this learned Father's Discourse 2. These following Words are another Confirmation But it would not have been a Figure of his Body if there was not a true Body He does not say it was not a Figure he says it would not have been a Figure in the Old Law. 3. Marcion argues for you but why did he call Bread his Body and not something else Tertullian answers that he argued thus not knowing Bread was an ancient Figure of the Body of Christ as we learn from Jeremy 4. He confirms the same in these Words You may likewise acknowledge the Old Figure of Blood in Wine It follows also from hence that our Saviour's Body was not a Phantasm or an Appearance which was another of the Marcionits Errors but a real Body not that the Sacrament as you would have it but that Bread in the Old Law as I have demonstrated was a Figure and Image of his Body in the Sacrament which must be a true Body otherwise there is a Figure of a Figure which your own party will not allow of Nor could it adds Tertullian have been a Figure of his Body if there had not been a true and real Body If for all this you will pretend that as Bread in the Prophet was a Figure so likewise is Bread still in the Eucharist a Figure of Christ's Body I may without prejudice to the Catholic Belief humour you so far as to grant the Sacramental Bread is a Figure but a Figure joyned to the Reality For if you will say what you find not in Tertullian that the Bread in the Sacrament is
have said to Theodoretus that is the outward shape of Bread remains And if these Words immediately following what you objected had been cited the difficulty would have been removed They the inward Substance of Bread and Wine pass by the operation of the Holy Ghost into a Divine Nature yet remaining in the propriety of their Nature It is only the Proprieties of the Nature of the Bread and Wine the Colour and the Tast that remain The Substance is changed For how could the inward Substance of Bread and Wine pass by Divine operation into Christ's Body and not cease to be how can a Protestant pass into the Roman Catholic Church and become a pious Member thereof and not truly cease to be a Protestant This Gelasius is not the learned Pope Gelasius and I need not labour to prove this Your own Critics write that that Treatise de duabus naturas whence you borrowed this Objection belongs to some other of the same Name I shall instance only one reason This Author ranks the Works of Eusebius Caesariensis among those of the Orthodox Fathers which cannot be said of the pious and learned Pope Gelasius who numbers the same Eusebius in his own Authentic Works with Apocryphal Writers There is then not one of our Popes against Transubstantiation And if you cannot alledg one Pope from the beginning of Christianity who teaches contrary to what is now professed in the Roman Church concerning this contested Article of Faith is it not a great Argument that it was alwaies taught in the Church of God Article IX Upon Facundus FAcundus the African Bishop justifying Theodorus Mopsuestenus who had said That Christ also received the adoption of Sons reasons thus Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized and the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood is by us called his Body and Blood. The intern Grace of the Holy Ghost received in Baptism properly constitutes us the true Sons adoptive of God which could not be conferr'd on our Saviour for he was enriched with the plenitude of perfection and was the natural Son of God. Yet Christ may be said Facundus urges to receive the Adoption of Sons because he vouchsafed to receive Baptism the Sacrament of Adoption Then seeking an Example to verify that Baptism may be called Adoption though it was not but only contain'd the Grace of Adoption was forced instancing the Blessed Sacrament barely to consider the Sacrament in the outward Species of Bread in the Eucharist which may be called the Body and Blood of Christ because it contains the Body and Blood of Christ What is contain'd in Baptism is it not the proper Grace of Adoption and what is contained in the Consecrated Species is the true Body and Blood of Christ Can any after this believe that what you have objected prejudices in the least the Universal and received Doctrin of the Christian Church of Bread and Wine substantially chang'd in the Sacrament into the proper and true Body and Blood of Christ What you repeat by way of Appendix the Names of some Catholic Divines is inconsiderable Only this I can say you might have more prudently omitted them in your own behalf than chang'd their Words in detriment to the Catholic Doctrin For Scotus only says that the truth of some Articles is more explicit or manifest in the Lateran Decrees than it was in the Symbols of the Apostles or in the Athanasian Creed or that of Nice and in a word what ever is here defin'd in the Council of Lateran is to be held as a sincere part of our Faith. Durandus does not say that he would have been of a contrary Opinion had not the Church defin'd for Transubstantiation but only tacitly insinuates that he would have made use of the Bread and Wine remaining with the Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was possible to God though really false in order to solve some Objections had not the Canon of the Church interven'd Nor ought we to be surprised at this For Durandus ordinarily walked on the brink of Faith in Assertions and therefore merited the Title of Temerarius Doctor in the Church of God. These are his Words The Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ yet although this be really true it was possible to God that the Body of Christ might have been in the Sacrament with the Substance of Bread which is not really true for the Church has decreed the contrary and she is presum'd not to err in her decisions Therefore holding the Bread chang'd into Christ's Body I answer to the contrary Objections Tunstal Bishop of Durham says from the beginning of Christianity no body doubted of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament and that the Learned Ancient Writers look'd upon the manner how the Bread passed into Christ's Body as inscrutable and not to be searched into lest we should seem to tempt Christ with the Capernaits doubting how this can be But through God-almighty's power to whom nothing is impossible the change of Bread into Christ's Body by Transubstantiation seem'd to Innocent the Third and those who sat with him in Council to agree most with these Words of Christ This is my Body And he censures those who deny this change with impudent boldness and opposes them to Christ saying If we believe them who profess your Error neither Christ nor the Holy Ghost can change Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body whose Word made all things of nothing Tell me what was Erasmus's Thought and I 'le answer what Religion he was of In some places he favours the Lutherans oftentimes he 's a Catholic I am sure he 's not a Protestant in that Epistle to Conradus If you are persuaded there 's nothing besides Bread and Wine in the Sacrament I had rather be torn in pieces than profess what you profess If Alphonsus say ther 's seldom mention in Ancient Writers concerning Transubstantiation these seldom Intimations are sufficient to shew that 't was always taught in the Church of God which ought to convince any unbyased Understanding CHAP. II. An Account of the coming in of Transubstantiation I Have already done this to your hand 'T was instituted by our Saviour I suppose then you mean a particular Account of the coming in of the Error against Transubstantiation and by what attempts and degrees it was advanced against the Romish Church The first Opposers of this Doctrin were the Capharnaits who scandaliz'd at our Saviour's Promise cry'd out How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat This was seconded with the Complaint of his own Disciples This is a hard saying and who can hear it Both were taxed with Incredulity as St. John writes in his Sixth Chapter And St. Austin calls them Heretics Judas heading them as their
can make God. This is certainly to run headlong into Hell in Heavens Road wheedling the People into Blind Extasies with Hypocritically crying out O Blessed Saviour But all who says O Lord O Lord shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Examine your own Prayer and Reason will find matter enough to discuss and Conscience more to correct What Catholic ever said First That Men should kill one another Secondly That the most barbarous thing in the World is a Mystery of Religion Thirdly That we flatter the Priest who says he can make God These are as true as your Prayer is without Calumny or Hypocrisie They are as true as there were Execrable Murders committed to drive People into this Senseless Doctrin by no Body in no Place But they are not as true as the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was delivered by Christ and his Apostles taught by the Consent of the Fathers Divinely revealed and propagated to Posterity and so free from Stupidity quiet from Cruelty and a Pious Mystery of our Religion Article IV. Of the Danger of Idolatry IF we should be mistaken as you suppose about this Change through the crosness of the Priest which God forbid it should happen not pronouncing the words of Blessing or Consecration we should not at all be guilty of Idolatry For believing only one true God we profess there is infinite Distance between him and all Creatures and therefore we cannot so honour any Creature as we do the true God. Nor is our Intention ever determined by the Will to adore any thing which is not God So that if the Hoast were not through mistake consecrated by the Priest the Peoples Adoration would be terminated in Christ where e're he is because it is directed to God and not to a Creature The Pagans 't is true or Persians cannot be excused from Idolatry in worshiping the Sun because erring from the knowledge of the true God they direct their Adoration to what is not God but a Creature Mr. Thorndyke one of the great Lights of your Church was so convinced in this point that he professes should this Church of England declare that the Change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this Supposition of Idolatry in the Church of Rome I must then acknowledge that we Protestants are the Schismatics CHAP. II. Of the Monstrous Absurdity of this Doctrin TO shew the Absurdity of this Doctrin you are contented to ask these few Questions Question 1. Whether ever any Man have or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation Answer If we had no surer Evidence of Revealed Truth than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation we should have no true Evidence for Christian Religion And thus by your First Question Christianity would immediatly be dispatched out of the World. Quest 2. Supposing the Doctrin had been delivered in Scripture in the same words which we read in the Council of Trent You ask by what stronger Argument could any Man prove to me that such words were in the Bible than I can prove to him that Bread and 〈…〉 Consecration are Bread and Wine still Answer The Sense of the Council of Trent and that of the Scriptures are one and the same If therefore I can but appeal to 〈◊〉 Eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible as you do appeal to your Senses to prove that Bread and Wine remain after Consecration what the Scripture says is evidently true according to the Testimony of Sense and your Testimony from Sense of the substance of Bread remaining is evidently false I have great assurance of this For St. Paul forbids me to believe an Angel if he should come down from Heaven and teach me contrary to what is writ in Scripture As this is the substance of Bread and not my Body is contradictory to this is my Body And what Prerogative enjoy you beyond that of an Angel And if you draw one way with your Evidence of Sense and Scriptural Evidence from Sense draw another way is it not evident that your evidence is good for nothing Quest 3. Whether it be reasonable to imagin that God should make that a part of Christian Religion which shakes the main external Evidence and Confirmation of the whole You mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles the Assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of Sense Answer With great Reason and Justice you appeal to the Senses of those who say they saw the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles because their Eyes were the proper Witnesses of Miracles So with the same Reason and Justice I appeal to my Senses to prove that the words which teach the Doctrin of Transubstantiation are in Scripture because Paper Ink Syllables and words are the proper Objects of Seeing feeling and hearing How then does the Catholic Tenet shake the main External Evidence of the Christian Religion when this external proof of Sense evidences from Scripture Transubstantiation Quest Whether our Saviour's Argument were conclusive or not proving to his Disciples after his Resurrection that his Body was risen Luke 24. 29. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see me have And if seeing and handling be an unquestionable Evidence that things are what they appear to our Senses then the Bread in the Sacrament is not chang'd into the Body of Christ Answer Sense in its own Objects is frequently certain and here we may rely on it According to this Principle the Argument which our Saviour used did certainly prove to the Disciples that what they saw and handled was his true Body For affirmation of Flesh and Bones rightly follows from feeling and seeing These Actions belong properly to the experience of Sense Besides we have all this recorded in Scripture And our Saviour made use of all other Arguments imaginable to confirm the Mystery of his Resurrection In some Circumstances the Senses may deceive us and then we ought not to rely on them Thus the Jews designing to precipitate our Saviour from the top of a Mountain Jesus as we read in Scripture passed through the crowd and departed and the whole Multitude trusting to that Information which Sense gave them believ'd he was a Ghost or Apparition In like manner the same true Body of Christ is substantially present in the Sacrament after a Spiritual Existence and therefore it is not the proper Object of Sense and so we cannot here rely on our Senses We must then trust to something else viz. to the Testimony of Scripture which is the Rule of Faith to know surely what Substance or Body lies under the Species or appearance of Bread. Now the Scripture teaches us that the Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ This is my Body and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh
Saviours words can import no less than the verity of Transubstantiation FIRST MOTIVE The Written Law shadowed future Truth and this Truth was Christ So we read Moses sprinkled with Blood the Book and People saying This is the Blood of the Testament which God hath enjoyned unto you The Blood of the Ancient Covenant was the Figure of the Blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament This appears from the words of our Saviour in the Institution This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many This Miraculous concord of the Old and New Covenant This repetition of the very same Phrase is an Evidence beyond denyal that the former was a Symbol of the latter And since you cannot understand the latter of Christs Blood spilt on the Cross Because you pretend St. Luke says his Blood was then shed which is shed for many which preceded the Crucifiction It follows necessarily to be understood of the true Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Because a Figure is not without the Reality nor a Shadow without a true Body SECOND MOTIVE As it is true that Jesus took Bread so are we taught that he blessed it And what he brake and what he gave to his Disciples was without doubt what he had blessed or consecrated The Question is what this was None of the Evangelists say that he gave Bread they say Jesus took Bread and Jesus assures what was blessed broken and given was his Body saying This is my Body If it was then Bread as the Evangelists note Jesus took Bread and after the Divine Benediction or Consecration became his Body as Jesus affirms this is my Body Then without extorting or racking of Scripture without adding figurative Glosses and wicked is the Man who superads to Scripture the facile sense of Scripture readily leads to the plain Article of Transubstantiation THIRD MOTIVE The Circumstances of our Saviour urge for the Literal Acceptation of This is my Body For Jesus spoke to his Apostles to his dearest Friends preparing to bid his last Adieu and then if ever Sincerity discloses it self without difficulty and after a facile and intelligible Method He 's Wisdom it self and knew how to Phrase his Thought He 's Omnipotent and so can surmount what Human Frailty might conceive as impossible He 's Goodness it self and cannot deceive us And therefore said what it was and what he said was true FOURTH MOTIVE Is the conformity of Scriptures For if Christ had ever design'd to signifie that the Eucharistical Bread was only the Figure of his Body it would surprize us what inclin'd him to make use of this Speech this is my Body and after such a choice to leave it barely without explanation when he so carefully taught his Disciples the true meaning of many easier Parables 'T would astonish us finding the three Evangelists with St. Paul who testifies he received the same Doctrin from revelation not constrain'd nor combining to joyn in expression yet to repeat all the same words without the Least alteration And we read in Latin Greek Syriac Arabic all Versions and Languages nothing but the same expression and equal confirmation FIFTH MOTIVE The very same Interpretation of other Scriptural Passages wherein are grounded the chief Articles of Christian Belief enforces the sequel of Transubstantiation For I believe adhering to Scripture as the Rule of Faith that this Passage the word was made Flesh imports a Substantial Union I believe the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father included in these words I and my Father are one I believe one Divine Essence of three distinct Persons revealed in These three are one Upon these Testimonies of Holy Writ Substantially understood I quietly repose my belief of the Incarnation of our Saviour the Son's Divinity and of the sole and undivided nature of the Blessed Trinity This Method is further secur'd by the consent of all those who are and pretend to be true Members of Christ's Religion Now if I follow this Determination so authorized and so certain if I follow this motive of my own Conviction in other like Articles extending the same uncontrol'd Interpretation to this is my Body I must necessarily grant this Inference this is my Substantial Body Thus my Faith seeks to be one as Scripture is one and God one Truth As this literal Reflection is sincere and pious the figurative Explanation of our Saviour's Words wants no Fallacy nor Impiety For if I may presume to give this sense to our Saviour's Words this is not my Substantial Body this Presumption ought to be strongly grounded as allowable just and in Equity to be follow'd And if so then I may lawfully give the same exposition to the three alledg'd Articles For the Scripture urges not more out of this Passage The word was made Flesh the substantial connexion of the Second Person with Human Nature or out of these words I and my Father are one the identity of the Son with the Father or out of these Three are one the unity of Nature in three Divine Persons than out of this is my Body the Substantial Body of Christ If therefore I might lawfully understand our Saviour's words in an empty figurative exposition saying this is not my Substantial Body I might rightly deduce following the same interpretation then the word was not substantially made Flesh and so deny the Mystery of the Incarnation I and my Father are not substantially one and so prosess Arianism These three are not substantially one and so dividing the Divine Nature constitute many Gods. Can such a figurative Explanation be thought a sincere part of the True Religion which undermines and utterly destroys the whole Fabrick of Christianity And ought not my own Motive in the most considerable Mysteries of Christianity contained in Scripture be to me the same in the determination of the true Sense of This is my Body SIXTH MOTIVE The true sense of our Saviour's words may be gathered from the Doctrin which the Learned and Ancient Fathers maintain'd against incroaching Heresie What if I should now advance that the Successors of the Apostles upbraided Heretics for denying the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which suffered for us upon the Cross would you not look upon it as an invincible undertaking and yet the glorious Martyr St. Ignatius elected Bishop of Antiochia thirty eight years after our Saviour's Passion plainly delivers They certain Heretics whose Names he thought convenient not to mention do not receive Eucharists or Sacrifices because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which Flesh suffered for our sins and which the Father raised again by his benignity Nor is it enough to say these Heretics could not admit the Eucharist to be a Figure because they deny'd that Christ had true Flesh This perchance is true But it is not here the sense of the Martyr who says expresly that they reject Eucharists because they do
St. Paul proves quite the contrary demonstrating if there be a Testament there must be true Blood and so concludes Whereupon neither the first Testament was dedicated without Blood and without sheding of Blood is no remission Lastly You urge besides his Blood which is said to be shed which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first Celebration of this Sacrament We do not dispute with you the actual effusion of Christ's natural Blood which was a sanguinary Sacrifice But can you deny that in those words you alledge from St. Luke where Christ's Blood is said to be shed is contained a mystical Sacrifice St. Austin calls this the Oblation of Christ's Body on the Altar St. Cyprian four times in the same Epistle the Dominical Sacrifice St. Gregorie Nazianzen the unbloody Sacrifice Two Sacrifices we acknowledge with the holy Fathers different in manner not distinct in substance The same Blood spilt naturally once upon the Cross and mystically offered daily on the Altar Because the same Caracteristical mark of true Blood is attributed to both the Sacrifices Viz. the remission of Sins by effusion of Blood. Hence St. Matthew speaking of Christ's Blood in the Sacrament says that it is shed for many for remission of sins And St. Paul in the foregoing lines without sheding of Blood is no remission Article II. Examen of your Second Proof YOU are willing to stand in the second instance to the plain concession of many learned Roman Catholic Writers concerning the necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation And because you begin with the concession of the acute Schoolman let us examin what was the opinion of Scotus Scotus distinguishing two sorts or Classes of People the worthy and unworthy Receivers thus delivers himself It is undoubtedly to be held the Good not only Sacramentally but also Spiritually receive the Bad only Sacramentally that is subjoyns Scotus under the visible species the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary they do not mystically receive the benefit of the Sacrament This he proves from St. Gregorie the Great 's determination the true Flesh and true Body of Christ is received by Sinners and unworthy Communicants in essence not in benefit Then Scotus quotes St. Austin for the same evidence and concludes with the testimony of St. Paul to the same purpose This acute Schoolman asking afterwards q. 3. whether the Bread be changed into the Body of Christ Answers num 13. that it is changed into the Body of Christ 'T is true he brings in one objecting n. 4. n. 7. that our Saviour's Words may receive a more facile Sense than that of Transubstantiation And Scotus replies the more difficile sense is not to be admitted if it be not true but if it be true and can be proved evidently to be so then the more difficile ought to be chosen and this is the case of the present Article He pushes on the resumpt But why did the Church prefer the more difficile sense when she might have chosen a more facile in appearance I answer says Scotus the Scriptures are expounded by the same Spirit by which they were dictated and 't is to be supposed the Catholic Church expounded them by the same Spirit by which truth is delivered taught by the Spirit of truth for it was not in the power of the Church to make that true but in the power of God the institutor Now what is this to your purpose For if you take the concession of Scotus you must profess both the real Presence and Transubstantiation And this necessarily deduc'd from Scripture Because the Scripture efficaciously moved the Church to declare for the same Doctrin according to Scotus's words it was not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true The Church then necessarily followed Scriptural evidence And what was necessarily compulsive to the Church was not otherwise to Scotus who tacitly intimated the cogent necessity of Scriptures Authority for the real change of the substance of Bread into the Body of Christ instancing it was determined by the Church for Transubstantiation Bellarmin was of Opinion that according to the two literal senses of this is my Body read in the acute School-man the sole evidence of Scripture could not in Scotus's mind abstracting from the declaration and universal practice of the Church evidently compel the admittance of Transubstantiation Bellarmin was severe enough upon Scotus Yet he diminished much this severity saying the acute Schoolman added because the Catholic Church has declared in a general Council the true meaning of Scripture Transubstantiation may manifestly be proved from Scripture so declared But of what mind Scotus was the foregoing Page will sufficiently remind the unprejudic'd Reader Nor can you conclude Bellarmin himself granted evidence of Scripture was wanting for the Roman Cause because he said Scotus's assertion was not altogether improbable In like manner you may argue against the strongest Demonstration in nature You may frankly concede an acute Objection not altogether improbable and notwithstanding this Concession stick fast to the former Evidence of your Demonstration This is Bellarmin's case as the following words out of the same place testifie For although adds Bellarmin Scripture which we have heretofore alledged may seem so clear to us that it can compel a moderate man ther 's evidence of Scripture for Transubstantiation and Bellarmin's opinion Yet the acuteness of bright understandings leaves some doubt This is what is not altogether improbable But we ought to reflect these words of Bellarmin not altogether Improbable are grounded upon a meer supposal of two literal Senses which touches not our Controversie For Bellarmin plainly denies a figurative Exposition probable of our Saviours words speaking of things as they are instituted For thus he argues These words this is my Body necessarily infer either the true change of Bread as Catholics believe or a metaphorical mutation as Calvinists contend This Calvinistical Sense he had already declared as improbable saying we will generally demonstrate that 't is not probable our Saviour would figuratively speak And for the Lutherans Error holding both substance of Bread and the Body together in the Sacrament he says it shares not in the sense of our Saviour's words Thus the true change of Bread into the Body of Christ naturally follows according to Bellarmin from the plain and evident Text of Scripture Durandus divides the substance of Bread into Matter and Form. Then adds the Bread is converted by conseration into the Body of our Lord and the Form perishing the Matter is animated with the Soul of Christ A strange manner of Explication But what doth this avail your cause For if the Form of Bread perishes in Durandus's explication and the Matter be animated with the Soul of Christ the remaining Accidents can neither claim Matter nor Form of Bread and so
for where he enters unworthily there he enters in Judgment with the Receiver This holy Food cannot be the substance of Bread because Origen calls it an incorruptible Banquet Bread is not such Nor can it be a bare typical Figure of the Lord for when the Centurion said O Lord I am not worthy 't was our own Saviour present And if this Humiliation O Lord I am unworthy be attributed to any thing but our Saviour there present how can you excuse it from Idolatrie Finally this Lord invocated enters into the wicked which cannot be by Faith. For your Church teaches unworthy Receivers are not partakers of the Lord in the Sacrament by Faith. Article V. Vpon St. Cyprian YOU object St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle to Caecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water without Wine mingled with it and his main Argument against them is this that the Blood of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot seem to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting to the Chalice by which the Blood of Christ is represented Very well It is Wine in representation and the Blood of Christ is in the Cup by propriety or essence for it is that Blood with which we were redeemed and quickned according to St. Cyprian You argue afterwards from these other Words of the same Saint by the Water the People is understood by Wine the Blood of Christ is shew'n but when in the Cup Water is mingled with Wine the People are united to Christ so that you deduce according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental Cup is no otherwise changed into the Blood of Christ than the Water mixed with it is changed into the People which are said to be united to Christ I shall not be strictly put to it for an Answer after I have thus proposed St. Cyprian's mind St. Cyprian compares here the Jews to Wine the Gentiles to Water at the Marriage of Canaan The want of Wine marked out the Jews who refused to embrace the Law of Christ The plentifulness of Water represented the Gentiles converted to Christianity Hence Water comes in the Sacrament to design the Elected People Wine the Blood of Christ and both mixt in the Chalice the union of the People with Christ Now to your Argument And that I may the better convince you give me leave to make use of your Logic. Water is the People as Wine is Christ then as we receive Christ by Faith in the Sacrament so do we the People And consequently the People sanctify the Soul as Christ doth in the Eucharist Are you not ashamed of your Sophism Or rather how durst you equalize the People with Christ Sinners with their Saviour Man with God Again Wine signified the Jews according to St. Cyprian and Water the Gentiles now deduce from hence the Water was not changed into Wine at the Marriage of Canaan as you have done from the like instance that the mixed Chalice is not changed into Christ's Body and Blood. Article VI. Upon St. Augustin THE variety of Testimonies you gather from St. Augustin cannot well without perplexity be considered altogether I 'll endeavour to decline this Confusion examining each one of them in so many Paragraphs Paragraph I. YOU pitch first upon this Expression of St. Austin's in his Book against Adimantus the Manichee Our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body Adimantus endeavours to demonstrate the God of the Old Testament prohibited eating of Blood grounding himself upon this Principle of Duteronomy Blood is the Soul of the Flesh thereby to prejudice that Soul which Jesus declared in the Gospel was not lyable to corporal harm or punishment St. Augustin replys the Old Law speaks of the Animal Soul and the Words of Christ are only understood of the Rational Secondly the Holy Doctor tells him that Blood is called the Soul only because it is the Sign of the Soul. This he confirms accommodating himself to the Language of the Manichees who were of opinion that Bread Corn and Grapes naturally signified Christ's Body with this Instance our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave in the Manichees Opinion the Sign of his Body The Manichees Opinion was not St. Austin's And he therefore forewarns us to call in question Faith because he made use of the Manichee's Principle in their own confutation Paragraph II. SAINT Austin speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last Supper has these Words in which he recommended and delivered to his Disciples the Figure of his Body Language say you with exclamation which would now be censured for Heresie in the Church of Rome I 'm confident you are already persuaded to the contrary And I know not any Sect which holds a Figure incompatible with the reality I shall cite two of your Learned Patrons Peter Martyr says A Figure as far forth as 't is a Figure is not repugnant to the presence of the thing And Calvin before him granted a Figure doth not exclude the thing figurated The Lutherans are not of a contrary mind And if you 'll be pleased to look either into the Ancient or Modern Divines among Catholics you 'll find the same acknowledgment Paschasius formerly gave this answer to Frudegardus instancing St. Austin's Testimony These are Replys Paschasius Mystical things in which is the verity of Flesh and Blood and none others than Christ's yet in a Mysterie and Figure and the Words of this Mystery are called a Figurative Speech so Christ himself is called by the Apostle a Figure though Christ be the Truth Algerus illustrates the same with this Reflection upon St. John Baptist He was called a Prophet and more than a Prophet So the Sacrament is a Figure and more than a Figure To these I add of the Modern Catholic Schoolmen Ruardus Melderus Cardinal Alen Suarez Gordon Gonet And I never read any that held the contrary And I conclude with this of St. Austin The Blessed Virgin did not onely conceive Christ spiritually by Faith consenting to the Angelical Salutation but also conceived him corporally in her own Womb. How then doth the spiritual reception by Faith exclude the substantial Communion of Christ's Body in St. Austin's Opinion Paragraph III. IN the Third Place you cite his Comment on the 98th Psalm where treating of the scandal which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them ye must understand spiritually what I have said unto you ye are not to eat this Body which ye see and to drink this Blood which shall be shed by those that shall crucify me I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which being Spiritually understood will give you Life This is as much as to say be not